Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcut

WP:NCGN

This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.

General guidelines

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
- Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
- Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
- Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
  - In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
  - Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".
- Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. The formal version of a name (Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro for a header) can be substituted for it; extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox, as at Augsburg.
The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".
- Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below.

Emphasis

It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. (It is technically possible to bold or italicize Greek or Cyrillic names; but there is consensus not to do so, because they are distinguishable from running text anyway.) If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them.

Names not in Roman script should be transliterated (in italics). If there are multiple frequently used transliterations (again, used by at least 10% of the English sources), include them.

Use English

This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.

Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage. When the diacritics are used in the article title, however, please create a redirect at the title without the diacritic, as not all Wikipedia users can readily type accented characters.

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English; most places which are notable, in Wikipedia's sense, do have established names in English, which often are the local name: Pisa and Ravenna are as firmly established in English as Rome or Florence. The rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the Naming section of the article about the geographical place in question.

Dispute resolution

Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question; if the dispute is affecting many pages, a template should be created to pull all the disputants into one discussion. See Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for an example of such a notice.
Ask for help: If a consensus cannot be reached, it is recommended to ask for help using the proceedure outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography.

Examples

Gdansk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdansk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.
Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd; Battle of Stalingrad mentions Volgograd once in the text; three times in describing external links.
Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is widely accepted in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Meissen or Meißen? Meißen is the local (German) name; but Meissen is the single widely accepted English spelling. The argument that this is a "spelling mistake" has been proposed at the talk page; but has never been accepted.
Bombay or Mumbai? Bombay officially changed its name to Mumbai in 1995; but this is not the basis for our choice of name. That depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our policy on National varieties of English. Both were necessary.
Nanjing or Nanking? Here the name itself has not been changed; but the spelling of the name in English has changed over time. The article on the city uses Nanjing, the contemporary pinyin spelling; but the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does; for the unanimous discussion, see Talk:Treaty of Nanking.
There has been a long running dispute over the name of Liancourt Rocks (see Lamest edit wars). Some editors wish to use the Korean name Dokdo some the Japanese name Takeshima. The name Liancourt Rocks was chosen as a neutral compromise because for many promoters of the other two names the selection of either name by Wikipedia was seen as support for that national point of view.
Sometimes it is not possible to invoke a set of rules to determine which name should be used, in which case a local compromise will be necessary as happened with the Derry page. The editors of the page agreed to resolve the Derry/Londonderry name dispute by naming city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry.

Widely accepted name

The best method of establishing that a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers, is a statement to that effect by a neutral and reliable source. Without such an assertion, the following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):

Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
- One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
- Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on false positives below.
Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.
Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted.
If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted.

Some names will be widely accepted, but not quite meet any of these tests; they are phrased to ensure that no name not widely accepted will pass. These should be decided case by case, on the evidence of the substantial body of data accumulated in the tests above. Names which fail each by a small margin or single exception are probably widely accepted.

When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source. When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names. Similarly, a town's own website may well attest to an official name, even when this differs from local usage and widespread English usage.

If a source is in English, but has been badly translated from the local language, it is not good evidence for native English usage; in an extreme case, texts produced by Babelfish will have the English name only if Babelfish has been programmed to include it.

The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Almost always, actual American usage follows it, even in such point as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally prefers local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question.

False positives

Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, and mean the place in question. Search engine results can fail on all of these.

Google Books has no filter for language; the filter on Google Scholar is often mistaken.
Search engines will find hits when a paper in English is quoting foreign text, which may well include foreign placenames. This often occurs when citing a paper by title. For example, hits which are in fact citations of German papers which use Riesengebirge are not evidence of English usage, either way.
Google Scholar will frequently return post office addresses, especially for modern university towns. This attests to local usage, not to English usage (except of course for towns in the English-speaking world, for which local usage should prevail).
Search engines do not normally distinguish consistent use of a name from a single mention. Any good history of Venice will mention Venezia at least once; any good history of Bratislava will mention Pressburg. But what we want is the word they consistently use to refer to the city; it is very difficult to find that with a search engine, especially when the question is: does the source call nineteenth- or eighteenth-century Bratislava something different?
- For example, hits which are of the form "X (Foolandish Y)" attest to English usage of X, and Foolandish usage of Y. The latter matters to the Foolandish Wikipedia, not to us.
Many names are used for several places, often several places of the same type. In addition, many placenames have become surnames, and papers which are by authors with those surnames do not establish English usage for the placename.
Raw Google searches using www.google.com will find Wikipedia and its mirrors. These are not reliable sources, especially for what we should use. Avoid raw google searches as far as possible; when they are used, always include "-wikipedia" in the search conditions.

Some of these problems will be lessened if the search includes an English word, like "city" or "river", as well as the placename. (If this is done with one proposed placename, it must of course be done for all competing proposals.) Another approach is to examine the first few pages of hits, and see what proportion of them are false hits. But the only certain control is to count how many hits are genuinely in English, assert English usage, and deal with the place discussed.

Another useful idea, especially when one name seems to be used often in the construct "X (also called Y)" in sources that consistently use X thereafer, is to search for "and X" against "and Y" (or "in X" versus "in Y") to see which is common in running prose.

Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are largely random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.

Multiple local names

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.

We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems. In the case of the communes of South Tyrol, there is a linguistic survey of the area, by commune, which has the following advantages:

It is available on-line, and officially published.
The proportions of the various language groups are fairly stable.
Most communes have a large majority, often a 90% majority, of one language group.
In the few cases where there is a widely used English name, it is usually that of the majority language group.
- Exception: The population of Merano is almost evenly divided, with a slight German-speaking majority; and Meran is quite often used for it in English. There appears to be sufficient evidence that Merano is widely used in English, however.

Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority. If these conditions apply elsewhere, this solution may be worth considering.